Since September 2006, there has been speculation on the web, particularly here in Virginia, that Webb might not make it the whole six years as our U.S. Senator and would likely be on any of the then-unknown Democratic nominee’s vice presidential short list. However, Dale Eisman’s article today in the Virginian-Pilot makes it appear that this is somehow a new phenomenon.
Although Virginia blogs have weighed-in on the subject for years, Eisman chooses as his examples national blogs, including an international one from…Australia? And, instead of having any blogger quoted on the significance of these predictions, Eisman trots out three political science professors almost in an effort to diminish or demean the internet discussions.
It almost read to me to be an apology of the traditional v. the new. Of MSM and acedamia v. Web 2.0.
Here’s a couple of points to illustrate what I mean:
“It’s the Internet,” said Larry Sabato, the veteran University of Virginia professor long seen by reporters as a go-to guy for insights on state and national politics.
Webb is a particular favorite of liberals online, Sabato said, a powerful symbol whom they helped lift from obscurity in 2006 and who is now challenging the Democratic Party to return to its roots as the tribune of the working class. “He’s so blunt-spoken, just like they are,” Sabato said.
Sabato has a huge reputation and a stack of thoughtful books and essays to show for his decades of study of all things political. However, he and other media and academic “mentioners” who once dominated the arcane world of vice presidential speculation are being all but drowned out this year.
Doesn’t that last sentence almost read “it’s too bad that such thoughtful people like DR. Larry Sabato aren’t being heard over the din of the rabble on the internet, especially when he appears in my article!”
But, perhaps my analysis there is too subtle. How about we let this quote from Rutger’s emeritus professor, Dr. Gerald Pomper, make the argument for me:
Of course “it doesn’t mean anything,” said Gerald Pomper, a political scientist at Rutgers University. “What’s really happening is happening offstage.”
Obama and Republican John McCain are sorting through potential candidates from on and off the much-discussed lists and reaching their own conclusions, he said.
Vice presidents are rarely picked based “on polls of unrepresentative people, and people on the Internet are very unrepresentative,” Pomper said. “People on the Internet are the worst people you’d want to listen to.”
I am not going to quibble with what is actually being said; certainly McCain and Obama have advisers who are strategizing as to who should be selected as their running mate and why. And, we all know, and have said, that the internet is a place to float ideas, have discussions, enjoy the dialog, make an occasional argument, etc. Solutions to the issues facing America are much harder than a short sound-bite and generally require years of study and subject matter experts…but that doesn’t mean good ideas and solutions can’t come from the internet — and this includes suggestions for both McCain and Obama on who should be their next VP.
Contrary to Dr. Pomper’s rather pompous statement, as you would expect, I believe differently about whether the McCain and Obama camps should pay attention to the “buzz” on the Internet.
The only thing unrepresentative about the Internet is that the people who write here care a great deal about their country and their causes. Unlike so many citizens throughout our nation who don’t even vote, the people who participate on-line often spend hours researching positions and participating in the democratic process. If only the professors in their ivory towers (and MSM who feel threatened by the new media’s existence) could see that the amateurs who participate do it out of love and passion for democracy and debate. The internet is this generation’s newest form of civic virtue that our forefathers envisioned at the beginning of our republic.
When we write about subjects, and that includes vice presidential buzz, we are doing so from the perspective of people who are going to participate: donors, volunteers, activists, etc. We are the ones who are part of the base of a campaign. What better way to find out the energy of your campaign and the stability of your campaign’s foundation than to see what’s being chatted about on the blogs?
But even put volunteering aside and just consider this fact alone: most bloggers — in fact a vast majority of the bloggers — are going to vote. That, in and of itself these days, should be reason to pay attention.
The worst person it would seem to listen to is an out-of-touch professor who the world has passed by…and perhaps the monolithic and dead-wood media that perpetuate such myths.
